[rustdoc] Do not take doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests - #159014
[rustdoc] Do not take doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests#159014GuillaumeGomez wants to merge 5 commits into
doc(cfg()) into account when filtering doctests#159014Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
And now it fails because we (doc) inlined some functions. Fixing that then. :) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
f5059c8 to
062cfea
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
062cfea to
1d5692c
Compare
|
Fixed CI \o/ |
1d5692c to
a0bf3c9
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Reverted changes I made to |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Ah, new stuff gets added. |
a0bf3c9 to
59a72c3
Compare
|
cc @Amanieu, @folkertdev, @sayantn |
59a72c3 to
885af7e
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
885af7e to
21e8051
Compare
|
Seems like CI is happy now. |
|
Setting a new reviewer as fmease seems busy. r? @Urgau |
c154b1e to
c3f66e2
Compare
|
@bors try jobs=x86_64-msvc-1,pr-check-2 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: pr-check-2
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
💔 Test for 38cc34c failed: CI. Failed job:
|
c3f66e2 to
691f045
Compare
|
@bors try jobs=x86_64-msvc-1,pr-check-2 |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
[rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests try-job: x86_64-msvc-1 try-job: pr-check-2
|
Ah finally. @bors r=Urgau |
…est, r=Urgau [rustdoc] Do not take `doc(cfg())` into account when filtering doctests Part of rust-lang#147033. Because it was using the `extract_cfg_from_attrs` common function, it was taking into account the `doc(cfg())` attributes the same as if they were a `cfg`. I didn't mark this PR as "fix" because I didn't handle the case of the doctest not being marked as ignored because I'm not sure if we should revisit the fact that we ignore these doctests or if we should just mark them as ignored (because of `target_feature(enable = "...")`). Setting @fmease as reviewer as they are likely the only one with context about this issue. 😆 r? @fmease
|
💔 I suspect this PR failed tests as part of a rollup After fixing the problem, consider running a try job for the failed job before re-approving. Link to failure: #160507 (comment) |
|
This pull request was unapproved. This PR was contained in a rollup (#160507), which was unapproved. |
View all comments
Part of #147033.
Because it was using the
extract_cfg_from_attrscommon function, it was taking into account thedoc(cfg())attributes the same as if they were acfg.I didn't mark this PR as "fix" because I didn't handle the case of the doctest not being marked as ignored because I'm not sure if we should revisit the fact that we ignore these doctests or if we should just mark them as ignored (because of
target_feature(enable = "...")).Setting @fmease as reviewer as they are likely the only one with context about this issue. 😆
r? @fmease